Could Andy Warhol have improved on Mona Lisa?

[John Mayhugh]

Recently, I listed to a Cookie Jar Golf podcast where Frank Pont talked about Harry Colt and restoration/renovation work. It's always fascinating hearing about how Frank ended up in golf architecture, and his knowledge of Colt & Simpson makes for fun listening.

 During the podcast, the hosts asked about work on classic courses where significant changes have been made. Frank said that he gets very upset with some colleagues who do historical analysis but then don't let that guide their work. He argued, and I agree, that it's very unlikely someone is going to improve on a Colt course through design changes. When talking about why such changes happen, he had this line: I'm sure if you asked Andy Warhol if he could improve on Mona Lisa, he would tell you "Yes, I can."

For me, that's essentially what seems to be happening (and has happened) at a number of UK courses - the hubris about improving, not actual improvement. I realize we have covered this topic before, but it's worth highlighting again.

Well worth a listen to Frank's thoughts on the topic. He is a compelling missionary.

https://cookiejargolf.com/podcast-episodes/

[Jason Thurman]

This feels relevant to me in light of a recent tirade about the Mona Lisa that I got going on after a few drinks with the cousins a couple weeks ago...


I've learned in the last few years that I rather enjoy art museums. I thought they were for old people when I was a kid. Now that I'm a man of a certain age, I find myself loving them.


I don't really know much about art aside from words like "perspective" and "contrast" and "juxtaposition" and "balance." But it doesn't stop me from having wild opinions about it, just like the unwashed golfer has plenty of opinions about golf courses.


The problem with your question, taken literally, is twofold for me:

• The sanctity with which the Mona Lisa is treated is preposterous to me. It's a boring portrait painting in drab colors that somehow draws ridiculous crowds of tourists to gawk at it. I saw it in person on a school trip as a teenager and the experience almost certainly contributed to my then-perception that art museums are for boring old people. Presented with the greatest collection of art in the world, our group ran from the Mona Lisa to the Venus de Milo to the Winged Victory of Samothrace and stood 8 rows deep so we could notch our belts, missing all the cool stuff along the way. I get that it was painted by one of the greatest minds in history, but it just doesn't do it for me.
• But hell, Andy Warhol is just a socialite who got ahead of the "neon colors" game. He could pop-art the hell out of the Mona Lisa and I still wouldn't want to look at it.

So I don't know. I guess I'm agreeing with you?


I miss my buddy Josh Tarble's occasional rants about sacred GCA cows. He once suggested that Old Tom Morris might be overrated as a designer, and speculated that his design technique might have just been arriving onsite with his bag, smacking his featherie around, and putting stakes in the ground wherever it landed and calling those spots fairways, tees, and greens. Probably not accurate. Hilarious to think about - he phrased his hypothesis better than I paraphrase it.


And yet, even if that's exactly what Old Tom did, I don't know that Tom Fazio could come in and improve an Old Tom course.


John, I THINK we first met at Hyde Park years ago when Tim Liddy hosted a group there. Do you recall attending that? Do you remember his presentation prior to the round about the since-completed changes to 13, the hard-dogleg-left par 5? His goal wasn't to "restore" it, but rather, to "sympathetically renovate" it to bring out more of Ross' principles on a course that was constructed with a lower budget than what the modern club could afford. I found that compelling and very reasonable - the idea that the original design could be improved, but striving to do so in keeping with what he thought the original architect's wishes might well have been.

[Thomas Dai]

A not unknown dilemma in many areas. If someone is looking for work and money do they tell folks they can’t improve the Mona Lisa or do they tell folks they can even when they know in their heart of hearts that they likely can’t? Similarly if someone has a big ego are they likely to announce they can or can’t improve something? Sandbagging, hoodwinking etc for whatever reason is not unknown. The owners or controllers of said Mona Lisa or equivalent should ensure they do due diligence in not falling into the arms of a snake oil salesman.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe this could be a separate thread but what courses if any that are at least 80 years old are better today than they were when they first opened?  This is of course a subjective question but then most are in GCA. 

[Mike Hendren]

Maybe this could be a separate thread but what courses if any that are at least 80 years old are better today than they were when they first opened?  This is of course a subjective question but then most are in GCA.

In my opinion, Augusta National Golf Club.


Bogey

[Joe Zucker]

Maybe this could be a separate thread but what courses if any that are at least 80 years old are better today than they were when they first opened?  This is of course a subjective question but then most are in GCA.

I would guess that it has to be the great majority of them (excluding courses where maintenance declined).  I often wonder how many of the very best courses were great the day they opened. I'm sure they were very good, but have they been refined into something excellent?  Leaving what works and improving what doesn't.  I might be overestimating how much courses evolve...


I would vote Pinehurst.  As I understand it, the trademark greens were not original. If we love it and think it's a top course now, that must be an improvement.

[John Kavanaugh]

If you ever see the Mona Lisa in person you will be greatly disappointed. The viewing experience goes a long way in showing the benefits of private clubs.

[Marty Bonnar]

We went to the phenomenal Rembrandt retrospective at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam a couple of years ago. You couldn’t get within ten yards of The Night Watch, yet the HUNDREDS of other drawings, etchings, engravings and sketches made throughout his life, you could stand in front of and appreciate for as long as you liked. The quality of his body of work far exceeds the quality or notoriety of one item.
Fame is vastly over-rated. The Mona Lisa is far from LDV’s best work. By all means, see Cypress Point, but don’t miss Pitreavie!
 
F.

[Ian Andrew]

I once asked a very well-known architect - who has worked and still does work at a number of revered layouts - is there architecture that's so good or so clever that it should be preserved and never changed?

He said, "Everything can be made better."

Two thought came to mind at that time.

1. This assumes the renovating architect is more clever than the original architect.

2. You understand what actually makes the composition or playing the hole compelling.


That's not as easy as people like to pretend it is. Yes, often the major puzzle pieces are identifiable. But just as often it's an unusual choice, a contrast, a clever subtle twist that manages to take an interesting composition to something sublime. If you wipe that element out, it can crumble like a house of cards - never to be quite the same.

I find the renovations that baffle me most are the ones that take something subtle - but strangely compelling - and turns it into something painfully obvious. There's a desire to paint every inch of the canvas and to over-define every aspect of a hole. This seems to be the era for this approach.

Now for the Mona Lisa. It's probably more famous than it should be because it was stolen in 1911. Whether its hosting a US Open or being part of a famous theft, often works of art are held in higher esteem because of the circumstance that surrounds them.


For what its worth... I have seen the painting without a soul in the room. It's a lot easier to see more detail when up close. Go in the winter.

[Niall C]

I got in trouble recently mentioning the Mona Lisa in relation to recent work on a Colt course. Some architects out there have very thin skins 


Niall

[Mike Nuzzo]

For me the biggest difference between an artist and a golf course architect is that there have been way more artists. The competition is substantial and not always fair, but DaVinci and Warhol are both 10s on someone's scale. With so few golf course architects they aren't as "good" as artists just from natural competition, experimentation, and evolution alone.
Thus I would say it is more likely to improve a golf course than a painting by a master, partly because of the number of artists. The new and different (from an artist) are so much more easily explored than a new and different golf course.
The question on whether a great golf course could be improved is a case-by-case basis - there are so few masterpieces.
I would not want Pete Dye improving a Mike Stranz or vice versa.
Peace

[Mike_Trenham]

I would not want Pete Dye improving a Mike Stranz or vice versa.
Peace

While I may agree.  What I find interesting about your thought here is, I hear that both men really loved McDonald and Raynor courses and tried to incorporate their concepts in is courses.

[Andrew Harvie]

This feels relevant to me in light of a recent tirade about the Mona Lisa that I got going on after a few drinks with the cousins a couple weeks ago...


I've learned in the last few years that I rather enjoy art museums. I thought they were for old people when I was a kid. Now that I'm a man of a certain age, I find myself loving them.

So what you're saying is they actually are for old people, and now that you're old you enjoy them?

[Mike Sweeney]

Maybe this could be a separate thread but what courses if any that are at least 80 years old are better today than they were when they first opened?  This is of course a subjective question but then most are in GCA.

In my opinion, Augusta National Golf Club.


Bogey

I am genuinely intrigued that Bogey thinks this. Is it possible for additional information? Thanks

[Kalen Braley]

Maybe this could be a separate thread but what courses if any that are at least 80 years old are better today than they were when they first opened?  This is of course a subjective question but then most are in GCA.

In my opinion, Augusta National Golf Club.

Bogey

I am genuinely intrigued that Bogey thinks this. Is it possible for additional information? Thanks

This thread would be a good start...

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,61416.0.html

[Peter Flory]

He took a crack at it.

[Mark_Fine]

I have seen the Mona Lisa.  I would give it a Doak 5    compared to his other works. 


Maybe some courses should be preserved regardless of how good they are, maybe not.  We have debated that endlessly on this site.  Golf courses are living works of art so that remains a huge difference from other art, compositions,... that are static. 


Static things can more easily be restored vs living things that evolve on their own as well as by the hand of those responsible for maintaining them.


Some courses need to be changed and have been to remain relevant.  Again this is subjective too. 

[Greg Hohman]

Warhol’s body of work is so much richer than as characterized above. Send me a personal message if you want a reading list which covers the basics.

[Sean_A]

Recently, I listed to a Cookie Jar Golf podcast where Frank Pont talked about Harry Colt and restoration/renovation work. It's always fascinating hearing about how Frank ended up in golf architecture, and his knowledge of Colt & Simpson makes for fun listening.

 During the podcast, the hosts asked about work on classic courses where significant changes have been made. Frank said that he gets very upset with some colleagues who do historical analysis but then don't let that guide their work. He argued, and I agree, that it's very unlikely someone is going to improve on a Colt course through design changes. When talking about why such changes happen, he had this line: I'm sure if you asked Andy Warhol if he could improve on Mona Lisa, he would tell you "Yes, I can."

For me, that's essentially what seems to be happening (and has happened) at a number of UK courses - the hubris about improving, not actual improvement. I realize we have covered this topic before, but it's worth highlighting again.

Well worth a listen to Frank's thoughts on the topic. He is a compelling missionary.

https://cookiejargolf.com/podcast-episodes/

I can't disagree with you Tucky. Some of what seems a landslide of work to UK clubs is good. Generally, the clearing of trees etc is positive. However, I am far less enthusiastic about architectural changes...seems very hit and miss. Perhaps more importantly, character and individuality are slowly being hammered out of courses. I can think of three recent major changes at my club which I think are dubious.

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

I can't disagree with you Tucky. Some of what seems a landslide of work to UK clubs is good. Generally, the clearing of trees etc is positive. However, I am far less enthusiastic about architectural changes...seems very hit and miss. Perhaps more importantly, character and individuality are slowly being hammered out of courses. I can think of three recent major changes at my club which I think are dubious.

Thanks for this.

Tree removal makes sense, as left unmanaged (or worse, added) they can dramatically impact a course and how it plays.

The point Pont was making was about intentional architectural changes. In the Mona Lisa metaphor, he suggested that Warhol would think he could improve on a unique piece of art, and in doing so implied that there are a number of golf architects who think they could improve on Colt courses. Frank seems very conservative about making changes that alter the original design unless they are absolutely needed. I really appreciate this perspective.

Unfortunately, Colt isn't designing any more courses, just as da Vinci hasn't come out with any new works.

If you have something that is unique and created by a master of an art form, why not respect that? Some changes may be unavoidable due to safety or the golf ball, but how many more are being made that are to fit someone else's ideas and aesthetics? In the same conversation, Frank said that he thinks there are at most two living architects who might be able to improve on Colt's courses. These aren't named, but presumably would be guys with some fine original work of their own. Frank doesn't suggest that even these guys should make "improvements," only that they might be able to.

[John Mayhugh]

I once asked a very well-known architect - who has worked and still does work at a number of revered layouts - is there architecture that's so good or so clever that it should be preserved and never changed?

He said, "Everything can be made better."

Two thought came to mind at that time.

1. This assumes the renovating architect is more clever than the original architect.

2. You understand what actually makes the composition or playing the hole compelling.


That's not as easy as people like to pretend it is. Yes, often the major puzzle pieces are identifiable. But just as often it's an unusual choice, a contrast, a clever subtle twist that manages to take an interesting composition to something sublime. If you wipe that element out, it can crumble like a house of cards - never to be quite the same.

I find the renovations that baffle me most are the ones that take something subtle - but strangely compelling - and turns it into something painfully obvious.There' s a desire to paint every inch of the canvas and to over-define every aspect of a hole. This seems to be the era for this approach.

Really well-written, especially this:
There' s a desire to paint every inch of the canvas and to over-define every aspect of a hole. This seems to be the era for this approach.

Glad to see you posting again!

[Mark_Fine]

Was it Mackenzie or Tillinghast who said he would hire the town drunk to shape his best greens    How could anyone ever improve on that?

If there are any 80+ year old courses that have improved which I think there might be one or two, I wonder how that happened?  I hate to say this but not every Colt or Ross or Flynn course was a masterpiece without flaw.  Some changes (improvements??) are made before even looking to see what was once there.  That is where the real problem comes in.

[Ira Fishman]

Art often gets restored to its original state but not altered. The same should be true for great golf courses. If someone thinks that he or she can build a better course than Colt, convince a developer or club to provide a new canvas.


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Ira,
I agree wholeheartedly.  The trick is determining (and all agreeing) which ones are great.  As has also been said here many times which I also agree, maybe only 10% of classic designs are worthy of pure restoration.  This gets back to my point that careful study should be done before bringing in the earth moving equipment.  Some times great designs are hidden under years of change/alterations and you won't know that without careful research. 
Mark 

[Jason Thurman]

Warhol’s body of work is so much richer than as characterized above. Send me a personal message if you want a reading list which covers the basics.

I'm probably the guilty party here. Send me the reading list, please. As much as I like to stir the pot, I'm certainly game to become a little less unwashed. I mean, the dude designed one of my favorite album covers at the very least.

Art often gets restored to its original state but not altered. The same should be true for great golf courses. If someone thinks that he or she can build a better course than Colt, convince a developer or club to provide a new canvas.


Ira

Ira, that sounds okay in theory. But who decides whether a course is great or not? And what if that same architect can convince a developer/club to provide a new canvas, in the form of painting over what's already there? In a business where new construction is rare, shouldn't a salesman with a compelling vision be free to pursue it?


If Hyde Park was designed by Ross on a limited budget and paled in comparison to his best work, is it fair game for Tim Liddy to thoughtfully add more Ross-inspired features now that the club has plenty of well-heeled members to fund the work?


If Tiger Woods Design shows up at Blaketree and sees the possibility of Bluejack, should they ignore it and instead commit to honoring the original design that they've been hired to change?


I guess what I question most is the part where your post implies that the architect should judiciously choose not to pursue work of a certain type. I'd shift the onus. I think it's up to the club to know what they have, and nurture it. That means knowing when to restore, when to consider a bigger alteration, and when to leave well enough alone.